for those of us who are not american or are not interested in politics, what exactly is "citizens united"?

It's a landmark 2010 supreme court case in which the court essentially deemed money from corporations and unions as "free speech", unleashing the floodgates to huge campaign financing from special interests on both sides through "super PACs" (political action committees). It's the reason we saw records broken across the board for election spending this year.

Signed the petition, I think it's the worst decision of our generation thusfar, tying the gov't and special interests closer than ever is a terrible thing for democracy.

Well in a fortunate enough twist of fate Citizens United didn't really open up union spending as much as it opened up corporate spending because unions were already operating near peak ability.

So democrats have a financial stake in leveling the financial field there.

Quite a few republicans are extremely unhappy with the way citizen united opened up corporate spending. Worst part of these super PAC is how the money can be funnelled out of the PAC without any traces. Anyone who watches Colbert Report saw the the Super PAC --> 501c4 SuperPAC --> 501c4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colbert_Super_PAC)

Basically all the money from these Super PAc can be given to a 501c4 (which is non public) but the Super PAc has to declare it. So the first 501c4 can donate to a 2nd 501c4 without any public records so the money is totally lost. Even the IRS cannot track it.

If we can't get enough agreement to make it into a law, why the hell would an amendment do any better? Amendments are for big things, core values, more philosophical concepts than particular restrictions/freedoms.

I'm just looking at where the money is in elections. Of the 10 biggest Super PACs in the 2010 elections (first since the ruling) something like 7 of them were pro republican corporate groups and 3 were pro democratic union groups. Corporatist democrats or not the GOP has an advantage in this arena.

---------- Post added 2012-11-16 at 12:06 AM ----------

Originally Posted by smrund

NO MORE DAMN AMENDMENTS!

If we can't get enough agreement to make it into a law, why the hell would an amendment do any better? Amendments are for big things, core values, more philosophical concepts than particular restrictions/freedoms.

While I agree that people jump to amendments too often I think one clarifying that only people are actually people isn't a bad candidate.

If we can't get enough agreement to make it into a law, why the hell would an amendment do any better? Amendments are for big things, core values, more philosophical concepts than particular restrictions/freedoms.

how about if the amendment took things a lot farther? a set amount of money, air time, etc, given equally to candidates? throw on a minimum of states they are on the ballot in, maybe let some more voices in on a more equal footing. that is my particular pipe dream

how about if the amendment took things a lot farther? a set amount of money, air time, etc, given equally to candidates? throw on a minimum of states they are on the ballot in, maybe let some more voices in on a more equal footing. that is my particular pipe dream

i think the specifics on campaign law is best left to ordinary law. The Constitution should be setting the frame work in which the law functions, not acting as a super law.

i know. the stars would have to line up perfectly for it to happen, and probably not even then. that's why i called it a pipe dream :P fact is, no matter how fucked up something is there are people profiting by it, and will fight changes tooth and nail

normally id agree. but the process by which the lawmakers are chosen is too important to be changed easily by the lawmakers themselves imo

You mean like changing ID laws 2months before an election, changing poll hours, location, early votes and stuff?

The big problem is the US is that every state is responsible for organizing the vote and that the 'electoral college'(or whatever the name of the person responsible for the election) in each state is named by the governor thus a partisan nomination. It should really be like all those socialist countries where the person in charge of the election is apolitical and only there to make sure the process is followed.

For the record, I'm opposed to piles of money in politics in general. I don't care if the money is from unions or corporations, they're both terrible sources to have dictating policy.

Public campaign financing for any candidate who can demonstrate sufficient levels of support would be ideal.

---------- Post added 2012-11-16 at 12:20 AM ----------

You mean like changing ID laws 2months before an election, changing poll hours, location, early votes and stuff?

You just need to strengthen the VRA here and require every state preclear legislation on voting access and set time windows in which states can pass voting regulation so it doesn't come up during elections.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the VRA shortly and will probably weaken it.